Should governments ban social media for under-16s to protect mental health?

Question

The UK has announced plans to ban social media access for people under 16, joining countries such as Australia, France, Spain, Canada, Brazil, Malaysia, and South Korea that have introduced or considered similar measures.

Supporters argue that social media can negatively affect young people's mental health and that restrictions are needed to protect children. Critics say enforcement is difficult, parents should make these decisions, and social media companies should be responsible for creating safer platforms rather than governments imposing blanket bans.

What do you think?

Levin · Accepted Answer

We both know, that the UK has no interest in protecting children. Look what has happened historically at the hands of the 'cultural enrichers'.

This is merely a way of shoehorning their fantasy of digital ID and the total end of privacy.

I know nuanced thought eludes most people. So it is difficult to argue that social media is good for people's mental health.

The problem is. The cat is already out of the bag. The other problem is it will be easily circumvented by anyone with half a brain. Apparently 70% (and likely more) of Aussie teenagers are still using social media. So what they have done there has failed. So yes, it's just a way of surveilling everyone. Which does cause an erection for the UK government and the Germans on this website.

There are also wider issues about the role of the state. I am a libertarian at heart and really we need to minimise state interference in our lives. There is far too much lazy parenting and an inability to take personal responsibility.

I do however think there should be a blanket ban in schools. They are far too distracting and teachers have enough to deal with. Children should be there to learn, not create stupid tiktoks.

OneViewpoint · Accepted Answer

I think age limits on social media is a good idea. I also think responsible parenting is a good idea. The problem is how do you enforce either one remotely as a government or a social media platform? The current solution for pornography is to make a 12 year old kid click a button that says "I am 18 or older". There's a bulletproof solution. I mean people don't lie, right?

The problem is that we continue to release technology into the wild...

Porn websites
Social Media websites
AI

... before there are any laws or mechanisms to govern access or liability. Government is always 20 years behind technology. Therefore we are always trying to clean up the mess after the fact. Maybe we should look at the process of developing and legalizing technology for use by the general public.

jennifer_bloom · Accepted Answer

I think people should write books that teach people how to manage and use social media. I used social media in high school and it was an incredible tool that helped me relieve stress and grow in my communication style, as well as providing a wonderful source of simulation for me when I wanted dialogue with others that was more advanced than normal conversation which used a lower grade of language. I also find social media has been an excellent therapeutic tool for me, and has helped me release pent up stress and tension that I would have had to pay a therapist for if I did not have access to social media.

Ez-Bri-Z_v2 · Accepted Answer

Absolutely not. Not because I think that social media is good for kids, but because we don't need the governent to babysit our kids for us. From there it's a slippery slope from the goverment deciding what is best for us adults, on the internet or in other facets in our life where it doesn't make sense, just so they can control what we do and what we see. I wouldn't want that and frankly find it insulting that someone else feels the need to determine how i should be raising my children.

Not that I give my kids social media at 11 and 13, but that's my decision to make, not the goverments.

Maybe_Maybe_not · Answer

Politically speaking, I want major corps on a leash, to make them behave appropriately, because I don't believe in this "invisible hand" supposedly ensuring social balance. What I believe is that they're conditioned to proceed with whatever option is profitable, at the expense of the people involved.

So yep, gov intervention for me, that's the only force able to do what companies wouldn't want to. Without it the world would look like a permanent shit show with corporations doing whatever works for profit

Wholesome_Glory · Answer

We are currently raising a generation to find comfort in the fleeting distractions of a screen rather than the weight of their own potential. Protecting the minds of the young is not just about safety but about ensuring they do not lose the capacity to seek something eternal. We need to cultivate a hunger for genuine excellence instead of trivial validation. The goal of life is to transcend the ordinary and reach for a standard of living that leaves a lasting mark on the world. If we remove these digital crutches we might finally see the youth turn their gaze toward the heights where true greatness resides. We should be fostering a spirit that finds its deepest satisfaction in the pursuit of the noble and the profound.

Chazmatazz269 · Answer

This is a political choice. When the looney left was in charge, they were actively ignoring the research on social media because it was spreading their message exclusively. Now that conservative voices are growing again on social media, suddenly they have to stop kids from using it. That’s not a coincidence.
They don’t care about what is best for children. A UK woman was sentenced to more jail time for shaming a rapist online than the rapist received for participating in the gang rape of a child. No hyperbole whatsoever. Look it up.
IF they were actually doing it for the health and welfare of the kids, i’d be all for it. They are not. Therefore they should be stopped at all costs.

Kaneki05 · Answer

Nope, censorship I'm opposed. It should be rarely used and this opens up to more ways to censor it for adults.

Plus I don't know what I'd done without it, imagine you don't get along with others at school then your abused at home... Where you gonna interact with someone. Along with several other issues it causes. Reality be teens should navigate for better or worse.

When one says it's negative and show you that data they're making broad assessment. And acting like such negatives don't already exist in the real world, to what teens already experience.

Anonymous · Answer

not sure its necessary , think many young people enjoy social media and its not really as harmful as they claim and if there going to join social media once there 16-17 anyways what good does it do to restrict them when there 15 ish?

what evidence is there that those earlier years are more dangerous and would justify such a ban? really yet to see anything.

and instagram already has a ban in place to restrict adults from contacting under 18 users they don't follow , i tried to message someone i knew in real life who was younger than me and i could not even send them a message through that site since there is a block but i talk to them in real life all the time and they seem totally ok with it but social media says i'm not allowed to message them online

SeriouslyNotSerious · Answer

When I was 16, social media was my way of coping and socializing. I loved watching music videos, talking to people, classmates, playing Tetris, and I loved participating and watching debates. 😆 Also the trend, Gwiyomi. Those are the amazing times.. 🫶

But I guess it was just different back then? I don't really think banning social media would help, they'll still find a way to use it. Maybe, much more EAGER to rebel. They'll bypass and use it, haha.

jshm2 · Answer

Don't be daft.

The social media ban is nothing to do with protecting anybody. It's about controlling the narratives and media that are driving these kids to suicide.

Seeing and hearing how their parents tax dollars and apathy is being used to kill 16 years olds and younger in other countries.

The traditional media is well controlled, and propagandised by Western governments. Social Media is not something that conglomerates can fully control to that degree.

Jessica405 · Answer

It is parents' responsibility to decide what kids can access. Banning social media will not work as there are several ways round it. There are also worse places than popular social media sites. Some much worse.

andreasderjuengere · Answer

To ban something never has worked. Things will just move into grey-zones.
Alternatively, I suggest to physically execute a majority of game makers, site providers such as tik tok and "children cartoons".
We can extend that to advertisers and online marketing, too.

MrChinaski · Answer

The impression here, Australia, is that it is not hard to circumvent the ban. Still, young people have being sourcing alcohol underage for as long as there have been age laws on alcohol. There is still some benefit in setting norms and nudging people to avoid the harms of social media.

MerakSahibi · Answer

TikTok and Reels have had a greater impact on lowering our IQ than fluoride in toothpaste. Besides that, it's also true that artificial intelligence is making people lazier. The main effect of social media, however, has been the spread of homosexuality among Generation Z.

loveslongnails · Answer

What makes you think your brain is suddenly able to discern fact from fiction, or propaganda from truth, the day after you turn 16 years old? In the USA for example, over 77 million people couldn't discern their ass from a hole in the ground, and they were all over the age of 18, most of them between 28 and 50.

Social media monitoring is a job for parents, not governments, especially when you consider that most elected officials are often nothing more than political hacks.

Iron_Man · Answer

Maybe it depends if all they’re gonna do is just get online and not play sports or get out and do activities

BeenThereLovedIt · Answer

they should just ban it period. Delete the internet, that would be most beneficial to society and humankind, so naturally we won't do anything except keep allowing the capitalists to manipulate the masses into incredible stupidity

llorando · Answer

Um, no, that's parents responsibility, kids will find ways around the ban (like I and other kids found ways around our schools site blocker) and it's the first step to controlling what adults do on the internet. Do NOT believe any politician selling the idea of banning social media for anyone under 16 to protect kids, it's a scam to expand the surveillance state and control what we can and can't do on the internet.

FrodoSkywalker007 · Answer

Considering the impact of social media on everyone I think we all need a break. The truth is this technology is so intertwined with education that I don't see how this is possible

Spencer10 · Answer

Yes it should be banned. It may not work... it will be difficult but its worth a try. The social media industry do not care and parents could use the help.

TsundereMatrix · Answer

I think it should be up to the parents but then again there’s some bad parents out there. It’s really complicated. YouTube hit back at the UK government regarding the ban stating they are a “vital resource” and I kind of agree with that.

Just_Ken · Answer

The UK is worried about kids and social media but not...

objective_calendar · Answer

No, it doesn't stop teenagers from using social media anyways but what does happen is that it ruins it for everyone because of too much intervention and less privacy.

AviatorTom · Answer

Banning access to minors is an overreach, and virtually impossible to enforce. It should be up to parents to monitor their children's activity, as well as teaching them right from wrong.

lightbulb27 · Answer

yes to a large extent. Sadly, the smart phones made us dumber and more sick.

LiamJHayden · Answer

It is a method by which governments get to track their adult population via forced verification. Meanwhile kids are savvy enough to use a VPN to make it seem like they are in a nation without such regs.

Emmabrow · Answer

I have noticed children don't spend too much time outside. Whenever they have nothing to say or activities to do, start looking on their screen. Same with elderly 65+.

Anonymous · Answer

I think smart phones and social media should go away entirely, personally. Rip it out of my addicted hands and throw them all in the fire and never make them ever again. We will all be better for it.

Nikki1989 · Answer

The bans are a joke. There are so many ways to get around it which many kids have already discovered.

Jackblue · Answer

Social media is not the primary threat to young people, bad caregivers and gangs are. The same Australian and Spanish governments that push these bans are the same left wing ones that go soft on crime.

MissSunshine2 · Answer

Probably, yes. They're a lot more vulnerable than they know.

RedInnocent69 · Answer

Not sure. In principle it sounds good, but practically I expect it would be extremely difficult to implement and enforce

molonski2 · Answer

Australia = Best thing we ever did.. Certainly YES for certain.

DishLady · Answer

They used to do that here too, but ofc youth finds a way around the restrictions.

WhitneySnow · Answer

I’m torn, but in general I feel like that should be left to the parents

SeekerOfTruth007 · Answer

No. They should ban lgbtqs and other child molesting perverts from using the internet.

genericname85 · Answer

They already do that. And rightfully so. Like if you look at the terms of service, most social media does require you to be 16.

AgentG111 · Answer

Governments have way too much power.  That's why we are fighting back in the USA.

ThisSiteSux · Answer

Governments should outlaw social media. No adult should use it, but they do, because they are retarded children

msc545 · Answer

It's a very stupid concern. They should be more worried about the propaganda aimed at these young people.

Cw992 · Answer

Another power grab by the state. They've never cared about the children before and they don't now. This is to move us one step closer to a global communist society run by technocrats.

Anonymous · Answer

If they did it right they'd ban social media altogether

In_Trance · Answer

They should ban social media for the over 16s. That's where the real problem is

Morgan71 · Answer

I get why people might think it's a good idea but doubt it would get the desired results.

Anonymous · Answer

Just going to leave this here.

Hispanic-Cool-Guy · Answer

No. Government should have no business in parenting.

blackeagle007 · Answer

Kids lie about their age to get around the requirements. How would they stop that?

Jltakk · Answer

Social media should be banned outright, but big tech won't let thet happen.

exitseven · Answer

Parents should be the ones to ban social media.

DryGermanGuy · Answer

My name is Fritz and I approve this message!

Billlewis · Answer

No; their parents should.

Anonymous · Answer

Protect them from predators as well.

TonyMetal___86 · Answer

The social media should retrict them!

Kelly6 · Answer

@angels they should but they won't

Smileygirl2000 · Answer

No, parents should be monitoring their kids

Anonymous · Answer

Yes, and they should also ban smartphones.

Samflowerrr · Answer

I support it.

Should governments ban social media for under-16s to protect mental health?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should governments ban social media for under-16s to protect mental health?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.